DOCSLIB.ORG

FLORIDA PRISON LEGAL Ers .Ectives OLUME 14 ISSUE 2 ISSN# 1091-8094 MAR/APR 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FLORIDA PRISON LEGAL Ers .Ectives OLUME 14 ISSUE 2 ISSN# 1091-8094 MAR/APR 2008 FLORIDA PRISON LEGAL ers .ectives OLUME 14 ISSUE 2 ISSN# 1091-8094 MAR/APR 2008 2009 and overcrowding ifnew prisons aren't funded. T.ents Used to Scare. Lawmakers hung tough, some suggesting hanging extra Legislators Into Funding bunks in cells housing non-violent and elderly prisoners (without regard to space requirementS).' Another' More Prisons' suggestion was made to send florida prisoners to prisons in other states, which other states with overcrowding hortly after the Florida Legislature went into its problems have been doing for years. The FDOC swung Sregular session in March ofthis year, with deep cuts in back, saying it has no plans to send· prisoners out ofstate, agencies' budgets expected in the face of a state budget but it does have plans to buy metal buildings that can be shortfall, the Florida Department of'Corrections came out readied quickly for prisoners and surplus military tents to fighting for an increase to its budget to continue building houSe prisonerS. ' ' more prisons. In fact, punching quickly, by the end of March the The FDOC's first blow ' was ;a right' cross, 'the FDOC announced. that it was already putting up tents at department's secretary warned legislators that large budget eight prisons around the state. Uping the rhetoric, the cuts will lead to more cramped and dangerous -prisons and FDOC justified ~e 'tents claiming the system was getting a rise in crime around the state. "dangerously close to reaching 99 percent capacity," at In January the FDOC was riding high, Gov. Crist's which point state law will' mandate earlyrel~se for proposed state budget urged 'lawmakers to give the prison certain prisoners. That state law is the result of federal system $343 million more to build more prisons this year court intervention in-the 1980's and 90's when Florida was over and above its $2.3 billion budget That, however, was forced to reduce its prison overcrowding and fold up tents before the outcry really took off that Florida is facing a that it was housing prisoners in then. budget crisis and that deep cuts are going to have tobe 'U,sing the tents as a threat, theFDOC raised 24 ofthem made in all areas. ateight sites in March, An FDPC spokesperson said the As the legislative session progressed it was made clear department plans on erecting 108' of the tents during the that the FDOC was going to face cuts too. Legislators'said next 18 months. "'that despite a surge in prison admissions the budget Each ofthe tents measure 18 by 24 feet, cost $20,000 crunch could tnean scaling back prison construction and each and house 22 prisoners. They feature ceiling fans, a expansion. The FDOC responded by claiming that with large exhaust fan, a heat pump and wooden floors. the current 96,000 state prisoners the system is already at Separate shower, and bathroom tents will also be erected 97.3 percent of capacity and pointing out that it is and prisoners will eat in, the existing food service expected ~e.prison population,wit, ,~ch 105,000 by ~id- . buildings at the, prisons'where th\' tents are located. ' Florida Prison Legal Perspectives >"'iiORiE~"!~"I~~!!,'i;t;1Il~~E':': The department claims the tents are a temporary .. : ::-:":":".:,; .. :.: . solution, just to get them by until the budget crunch is over. '" .:" .. The legislature seemed to be unfazed by the FDOC :". :::" , ' ....:.; ....• :-:<. .:." ••••••••:. :.:-.::\ historically dangerous tactics, by mid-April there were proposals to cut the FDOC's $2.3 billion current budget by ,1.1~~ill $160 million. That reduction would come from gutting ...: .".. " ,...... ." <,". :: ::/~i.<'~ 1 prisoner education, vocational and drug ,rehabilitation :~~A~(", ,;;~~.,:',',"'" ""'.,':1 programs, a direct reversal of what FDOC Secretary Walter McNeil and his predecessor, Jim McDonough, have advocated. ' . .. • ~." .• . ...:::j InUne with what McDonough had proposed before his unexpected retirement in January, McNeil said keeping those programs means lower costs for oversight of low­ risk prisoners who are making the transition back to public life. It also means that prisoners with drug problems or a lack ofworking skUls are better able to make a permanent return to public life. ' ' ' Without them, McN~i1 said, "my suspicion is that there is going to be an increase in, ,?rime in our state" as prisoners unprepared for life outside of prison are released. ' , .' , Undeterred, the Legislature count,ered with an uppercut, proposing that benyeen 1,400 and 2,QOO jobs may have to be cut in the department While suggesting 'to cut prisoner programs, which'likely will lead ~ increased crime, didn't stir up much objection, the suggestion to cut jobs for FDOC probation and 'cOrrectional officers sent'a stream of them, reeling to T~lIaha$$ee to protest oUtSide the Capital building. " ,. It doesn't take a Don King to figu~ ~ut that whatever happens Florida prisoners ,are going to experience some hardships in the future~. Bl,lt the big'loSs will' be to Floridians as the crime rates will increase willi the expec~d cuts to, public education,' when 'Florida a'lready has one of the highest droPout rates in ilie 'country~ and with the continued refusal by legislators to implement and fund proven programs that would 'reduce prison recidivism.. _, 2 Florida Prison Legal Penpectives -Federal Habeas Corpus­ to articulate it's analysis ofthe federal constitutional claim is not an adjudication on the merits. Treating the state Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 court's decision as ~e focus for analysis, the Eleventh Circuit has reached the opposite 'conclusion in Wright v: Standard ofReview 11I by Dana Meranda Sec'y. Dep't. of Co"ections, 278 F.3d 1245, 1254 (11 Cir. 2002), (joining circuits that have concluded that the he Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of summary nature of a state court decision does not lessen r1996 (AEDPA) amended the statutory provisions that the deference that it js due)~ , tlvern fact review. State court fact·findings, if fairly The amendments to section 22S4(d)(I) have changed lade, will be accorded a presumption of correctness and federal habeas corpus review, in three basic ways. First, ~tion 2254(eXl) now provides that the burden of the statute provides that the federal court is to review the :butting the presumption of correctness is by clear and state court "decision" that'denied the claims'now raised in lnyincing evidence. Addington v. Texas, 99 s.ct 1804 the habeas corpus petition, as opposed to adjudicating those claims independently of the state court decision. 979) (discussing the lIclear and convincing" standard of 'OOt). ., . Consequently, section 22S4(dXl) eliminates the prior rule Courts have generally equated section 2254(eXl)'s of adjudication de novo (or from scratch) and makes the ' >Dcept of "clear and convincing evidence" with the state court decision (rather than the specific claim raised :learly erroneous" standard appellate courts use to review in the habeas petition) a primary focus of federal court IstriCt court fact findings. Inre Heidnik 112 F.3d lOS, review. Jackson v. COa/ter, 337 F.3d 74, 83 0" Cir. \2 (31ll Cir. 1997). ' . 2003). ' " . 28 U.S.C. sections 2254(d)(2) and 2254(e)(l) govern The federal court should examine the merits of the meri~ abeas corpus fact review. Courts that .have interpreted claim first, then, if there 'is' 'to: the constitutional nd applied these amended sections to situations were the issue, the court should review the state coutfs decision to tate courts made no finding of fact. on a. determinative determine whether the criteria of section, 2254(d)(I) iSue, Bell v. Cone, 125 s.ct. 847, 856 (200~),or ifa state precludes a grant offederal habeas corpus relief. ourt rmding ,was the product of unfair procedures, or is Second, in reviewing the state court decision to lot supported by the state court recofd, the federal court, determine whether secti9n 2254(d)(I) limits relief, the federal law to which the state court decision is compared it free to reach its own independent judgment on the luestion. Wiggins .v. Smith, 123 s. ct 2527, 2539 (2003)~ is limited to clearly established federal law, as determined raylor v. Maddox. 366 F.3d 992, 1000, 1014 (9th Cir. by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hart v. !004). • , Allorney General, 323 F.3d 884, 893 n.16.(11III Cir.) cert. Under the ~DPA, federal habeas corpus review ,of denied, 540 U.S. 1069 (2003). .. It~ courts' legal and mixed legal-factual rulings is And third, amended section 2254d1 establishes certain lubJect to the amended section 22S4(d), which provides limitations upon relief in those cases in which the federal hat a state prisoner's ha~ .corpus application shall not court finds constitutional error. The federal court cannot grant federal habeaS corpus reliefunless its review of the :Ie granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated' state court decisiop on the basis of clearly establishes . lD the merits in State court proceedings, unless the S~preme uljudication ofthe claim: Court law reveals that the state court decision was defective in one of two way~ither (I ) that the ~l) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved "decision was contrary to clearly estab'lished Supreme !n unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Court law"~ or (2) that the "decision involved an law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme States; or Court Law." , (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an The state court decision is the central focus of the unreasonable determination of the factS in light of the federal review process. , " evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food in Prison: an Eighth Amendment Violation Or Permissible Punishment?
    University of South Dakota USD RED Honors Thesis Theses, Dissertations, and Student Projects Spring 2020 Food In Prison: An Eighth Amendment Violation or Permissible Punishment? Natasha M. Clark University of South Dakota Follow this and additional works at: https://red.library.usd.edu/honors-thesis Part of the Courts Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons Recommended Citation Clark, Natasha M., "Food In Prison: An Eighth Amendment Violation or Permissible Punishment?" (2020). Honors Thesis. 109. https://red.library.usd.edu/honors-thesis/109 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Student Projects at USD RED. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Thesis by an authorized administrator of USD RED. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOOD IN PRISON: AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OR PERMISSIBLE PUNISHMENT? By Natasha Clark A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the University Honors Program Department of Criminal Justice The University of South Dakota Graduation May 2020 The members of the Honors Thesis Committee appointed to examine the thesis of Natasha Clark find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. Professor Sandy McKeown Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Director of the Committee Professor Thomas Horton Professor & Heidepriem Trial Advocacy Fellow Dr. Thomas Mrozla Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice ii ABSTRACT FOOD IN PRISON: AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OR PERMISSIBLE PUNISHMENT? Natasha Clark Director: Prof. Sandy McKeown, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice This piece analyzes aspects such as; Eighth Amendment provisions, penology, case law, privatization and monopoly, and food law, that play into the constitutionality of privatized prisons using food as punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Critique
    ISSUE 22:2 FALL 2017 Why Prison?: An Economic Critique Peter N. Salib* This Article argues that we should not imprison people who commit crimes. This is true despite the fact that essentially all legal scholars, attorneys, judges, and laypeople see prison as the sine qua non of a criminal justice system. Without prison, most would argue, we could not punish past crimes, deter future crimes, or keep dangerous criminals safely separate from the rest of society. Scholars of law and economics have generally held the same view, treating prison as an indispensable tool for minimizing social harm. But the prevailing view is wrong. Employing the tools of economic analysis, this Article demonstrates that prison imposes enormous but well-hidden societal losses. It is therefore a deeply inefficient device for serving the utilitarian aims of the criminal law system—namely, optimally deterring bad social actors while minimizing total social costs. The Article goes on to engage in a thought experiment, asking whether an alternative system of criminal punishment could serve those goals more efficiently. It concludes that economically superior alternatives to prison are currently available. The alternatives are practicable. They plausibly comport with our current legal rules and more general moral principles. They could theoretically be implemented tomorrow, and, if we wished, we could bid farewell forever to our sprawling, socially-suboptimal system of imprisonment. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38M902321 Copyright © 2017 Regents of University of California * Associate, Sidley Austin LLP. Special thanks to Jonathan S. Masur and Anup Malani for their comments and critiques. SALIB FALL 2017 112 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Looking?
    INTRO PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 5 Who’s Looking? Who’s Listening? “One day every three months it would be good; [the trays] would be full because they had a kitchen inspection.” — formerly incarcerated person This section examines the meager systems of accountability that have often failed to ensure food safety and quality, allowing the violations of health and dignity we’ve detailed in the earlier installments of Eating Behind Bars. In the world beyond the prison gate, commercial and other large-scale kitchens are subject to rigorous health inspections. Inspectors show up without advance notice, are not shy to document violations, and can force kitchens to close until the problems are remedied. In this way, health departments protect the dining public. Kitchens in prisons are not subject to anywhere near the same degree of independent external oversight. PART 5 | WHO’S LOOKING? WHO’S LISTENING? 2 A quick clean-up Prisons that are subject to health department inspections—and in some states they aren’t—typically know ahead of time when an inspection will take place. The same is true of an audit by the American Correctional Association and internal reviews by the correctional agency itself. As Theo told us, “When they do come in, the kitchen is spotless, the correct portion sizes are served. One day every three months it would be good, [the trays] would be full because they had a kitchen inspection.” Our surveys and interviews suggest that a quick clean-up to present a sanitary kitchen and safe food handling is routine in both public and private correctional facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • January 6, 2012
    January 6, 2012 Friday, September 9, 2011 in conjunction with Marion County Superior Court Probation Department, Marion County Community Corrections, and Marion County Sheriff’s Department -Sex and ViolentMiami Offender Correctional Unit, Facility’s American Legion Post 555 held a dedication ceremony for a flag pole it purchased and installed inside the fence of the facility. The legion members will be raising and lowering the flag each day at 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., which is the same time the nearby Grissom Air Reserve Base plays reveille and taps on their speaker system. (see photo below) Miami Correctional Facility’s PLUS Unit donated $200 to the Special Olympics through Captain Doug Nelson, who will be participating in the local Polar Bear Plunge on February 11th. The plunge is an annual event to raise money for Special Olympics. This year the plunge will be at the Crossroads Community Church in Kokomo, IN. Those participating take a plunge in frigid waters during what is hoped to be the coldest day of the year. A reception was held at the Indianapolis Re-Entry Educational Facility (IREF) for Dennis Ludwick, who retired after 24 years of dedicated service to the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC). Mr. Ludwick began his career with the IDOC on December 21, 1987 as a correctional officer at the Plainfield Correctional Facility. Throughout his 24-year career, Mr. Ludwick promoted to several positions within IDOC, including Correctional Counselor, Psychiatric Social Services Specialist III, Instructor of the Effective Fathering and Substance Abuse Programs, Social Security Representative, Veteran Administrative Representative, and Community Involvement Coordinator.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruel and Usual a National Prisoner Survey of Prison Food and Health Care Quality
    Cruel and Usual A National Prisoner Survey of Prison Food and Health Care Quality April 2018 Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee Research|Action Cooperative Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) is a prisoner-led committee of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a prison abolitionist labor union. We strive to support imprisoned IWW members and other prisoners’ ef- forts to better their working and living conditions while also working toward prison abolition as a longer term solution. www.incarceratedworkers.org Research|Action Cooperative is a collective of researchers working to serve social justice organizations, the labor move- ment and the solidarity economy. www.researchaction.net This report should be cited as: Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee and Research|Action Cooperative. April 2018. Cruel and Usual: A National Prisoner Survey of Prison Food and Health Care Quality. Cruel and Usual: A National Prisoner Survey of Prison Food and Health Care Quality 2 Executive Summary In 2017, we surveyed 123 imprisoned IWW members from 83 prison facilities in 21 states across the United States to determine their views on prison food and health care quality. The vast majority of surveyed prisoners were men from state prisons. Overall, the prisoners describe a prison system that routinely provides inadequate food and health care that endangers their health. Unsanitary conditions, small servings of poor qual- ity food, and lack of attention to special diets are common. Disrespect by health care staff, delayed care, and denial of treatment and medications are also common. Food Quality Issues • 69% of respondents rated the food quality as poor. 56% didn’t know who their food ser- vice provider was.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Death Penalty Require Death Row? the Harm of Legislative Silence
    Does the Death Penalty Require Death Row? The Harm of Legislative Silence MARAH STITH MCLEOD This Article addresses the substantive question, “Does the death penalty require death row?” and the procedural question, “Who should decide?” In most capital punishment states, prisoners sentenced to death are held, because of their sentences alone, in far harsher conditions of confinement than other prisoners. Often, this means solitary confinement for the years and even decades until their executions. Despite a growing amount of media attention to the use of solitary confinement, most scholars and courts have continued to assume that the isolation of death-sentenced prisoners on death row is an inevitable administrative aspect of capital punishment. To the extent scholars have written about death row, they have focused on its harshness. None has objected to the fact that prison administrators are the ones who have decided to maintain death row in most capital punishment states. This Article addresses for the first time the authority of prison administrators to establish or retain death row. It begins by exploring the nature of this death row decision, and concludes that death row is rational only if its intended purpose is to punish. This conclusion leads to the second and more significant claim in the Article: that only legislatures are competent to require death row. This claim is grounded in the need for democratic legitimacy and public deliberation in the imposition of punishment, in the separation of powers, and in the principle of legality. Death row should be abolished unless legislatures choose to retain it, expressly and deliberately, for retributive or deterrent reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Confinement: Can the Eighth Amendment Protect Prisoners from Human-Made Environmental Health Hazards?
    HELPPIE-SCHMIEDER (DO NOT DELETE) 4/21/2016 11:53 PM Copyright 2016 by Brenna Helppie-Schmieder Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 3 TOXIC CONFINEMENT: CAN THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROTECT PRISONERS FROM HUMAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS? Brenna Helppie-Schmieder ABSTRACT—What would you do if you realized a nearby factory or energy operation was making everyone in your town sick? You might try to rally your neighbors in protest, take legal action, or cut your losses and move away. But what if your options were more limited? What if you were forced to stay? This is the situation for prisoners across the country who live in prisons located near dangerous energy industry operations. The increased reliance on incarceration in recent times has resulted in prisons being built on undesirable land, often the same land occupied by the energy industry. This proximity presents serious health risks for prisoners who are exposed to harmful operations, yet are unable to move. Eighth Amendment precedent already establishes that health risks can provide the basis for unconstitutional conditions claims, but it is not as clear whether human-made environmental health risks can provide a similar basis. Given the legal standard for Eighth Amendment claims, and precedent interpreting that standard, this Note argues that human-made environmental hazards near the physical location of a prison could form the basis for successful claims of unconstitutional conditions. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2016. Many thanks to Professors Meredith Rountree and David Shapiro, whose guidance and feedback improved this piece immensely.
    [Show full text]
  • August 16-20 2009 ACFSA Annual Conference Grand Rapids, MI
    Spring 2009 The Magazine of ACFSA, the Association of Correctional Food Service Affiliates Save the Date! August 16-20 2009 ACFSA Annual Conference Grand Rapids, MI Teddie Mitchell ACFSA President Association of Correctional Food Service Affiliates Spring 2009 PRSRT STD Us Postage PAID Permit #271 Tucson, AZ Spring 2009 President’s Message ...................................... 2 ACFSA Elections ......................................... 37 Vice President’s Message .................................. 3 Chapter Presidents & State and Provincial Contacts ............ 38 ACFSA Board of Directors / Regional Vendor Liaisons ............4 Chapter Chatter ......................................... 39 What Leadership Means to Me ...............................5 Advertiser Index ......................................... 40 Dietitian’s Corner: DRI Update .............................. 14 ACFSA 2009 Conference Info. and Registration Forms ...........17 FEATURE ARTICLES ACFSA 2009 Policy Letters and Nomination Forms ..............23 The Magazine of ACFSA, the Association of Correctional Food Service Affiliates Can Omega-3 Fats Play a Role in Reducing ACFSA Challenge 2009 ................................... 29 Anti-Social Behavior .......................................6 ACFSA Past President, Ricky Clark Spreads the Word About Correctional Food Service ............................34 Views on the Use of Food Loaf ...............................8 Executive Director’s Message .............................. 35 Surviving These Tough Economic Times ......................21
    [Show full text]
  • Chains Bearing Witness
    BEARING WITNESS: A NATION IN CHAINS A REPORT of the SAMUEL DEWITT PROCTOR CONFERENCE Findings from Nine Statewide JUSTICE COMMISSION HEARINGS on MASS INCARCERATION Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Inc. The Social Justice Network Copyright © 2014 Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Inc. All rights reserved. ISBN 9915287-0-7 Contact: Iva E. Carruthers, PhD [email protected] 773-548-6675 Illustration & Design: Benita Lovett-Rivera BEARING WITNESS: A NATION IN CHAINS A REPORT of the SAMUEL DEWITT PROCTOR CONFERENCE FINDINGS FROM NINE STATEWIDE JUSTICE COMMISSION HEARINGS on MASS INCARCERATION Bearing Witness: A Nation in Chains CONTENTS FORWARD | Michelle Alexander | 5 A MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY | Dr. Iva Carruthers | 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 13 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS | 17 CONCLUSION | 35 AFTERWORD | Honorable Wendell L. Griffen | 44 APPENDIX I. Snapshot: A Nation of Chains | 47 Endnotes | 52 II. U.S. Constitution VIII Amendment | 55 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights | 55 United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners | 57 III. Justice Hearings Commissioners & Participants | 58 Photo: © 9and3quarters | Dreamstime.com 4 Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, INC. FORWARD Over the past three years I have been working closely with the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference (SDPC), an interdenominational faith-based organization of clergy and lay leaders. Over and over, I have found myself inspired by SDPC’s prophetic commitment to speak truth to power. Its latest report, Bearing Witness: A Nation in Chains, is a profound indictment of the criminal justice system and mass incarceration in the United States. It includes the testimony of experts and officials from nine states, as well as critically important data, findings, and recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Cookin'?: an Analysis of Food As a Method of Control in the Penal System
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Master's Theses Summer 2019 What's Cookin'?: An Analysis of Food as a Method of Control in the Penal System Zoe Livengood University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Food Studies Commons Recommended Citation Livengood, Zoe, "What's Cookin'?: An Analysis of Food as a Method of Control in the Penal System" (2019). Master's Theses. 657. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/657 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT’S COOKIN’?: AN ANALYSIS OF FOOD AS A METHOD OF CONTROL IN THE PENAL SYSTEM by Zoe K. Livengood A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School, the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Criminal Justice, Forensic Science and Security at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Approved by: Dr. William W. Johnson, Committee Chair Dr. Joshua Hill Dr. Laura Gulledge Dr. Jennifer Lemacks ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Dr. William W. Johnson Dr. Lisa Nored Dr. Karen S. Coats Committee Chair Director of School Dean of the Graduate School August 2019 COPYRIGHT BY Zoe K. Livengood 2019 Published by the Graduate School ABSTRACT According to Garland (2001), the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Without Parole As a Conflicted Punishment
    LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AS A CONFLICTED PUNISHMENT Craig S. Lerner, George Mason University School of Law Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 48, Forthcoming, December 2013 George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 13-50 Life Without Parole as a Conflicted Punishment DRAFT Sept 20, 2013: Please do not quote 48 Wake Forest Law Review ___ (forthcoming December 2013) Craig S. Lerner∗ Abstract Life without parole (LWOP) has displaced the death penalty as the distinctive American punishment. Although the sentence scarcely exists in Europe, roughly 40,000 inmates are serving LWOP in America today. Despite its prevalence, the sentence has received little academic scrutiny. This has begun to change, a development sparked by a pair of Supreme Court cases, Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which express European- styled reservations with America’s embrace of LWOP. Both opinions, like the nascent academic commentary, lament the irrevocability of the sentence and the expressive judgment purportedly conveyed—that a human being is so incorrigible that the community brands him with the mark of Cain and banishes him forever from our midst. In the tamer language of the Graham opinion, LWOP “forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal.” This Article tests whether that phrase is a fair characterization of LWOP today, and concludes that the Graham Court’s treatment of LWOP captures only a partial truth. Life without parole, the Article argues, is a conflicted punishment. The community indulges its thirst for revenge when imposing the sentence, but over time softer impulses insinuate themselves. LWOP is in part intended as a punishment of incalculable cruelty, more horrible than a prison term of many years, and on par with or worse than death itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Confinement: Can the Eighth Amendment Protect Prisoners from Human-Made Environmental Health Hazards?
    HELPPIE-SCHMIEDER (DO NOT DELETE) 4/21/2016 11:53 PM Copyright 2016 by Brenna Helppie-Schmieder Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 3 TOXIC CONFINEMENT: CAN THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROTECT PRISONERS FROM HUMAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS? Brenna Helppie-Schmieder ABSTRACT—What would you do if you realized a nearby factory or energy operation was making everyone in your town sick? You might try to rally your neighbors in protest, take legal action, or cut your losses and move away. But what if your options were more limited? What if you were forced to stay? This is the situation for prisoners across the country who live in prisons located near dangerous energy industry operations. The increased reliance on incarceration in recent times has resulted in prisons being built on undesirable land, often the same land occupied by the energy industry. This proximity presents serious health risks for prisoners who are exposed to harmful operations, yet are unable to move. Eighth Amendment precedent already establishes that health risks can provide the basis for unconstitutional conditions claims, but it is not as clear whether human-made environmental health risks can provide a similar basis. Given the legal standard for Eighth Amendment claims, and precedent interpreting that standard, this Note argues that human-made environmental hazards near the physical location of a prison could form the basis for successful claims of unconstitutional conditions. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2016. Many thanks to Professors Meredith Rountree and David Shapiro, whose guidance and feedback improved this piece immensely.
    [Show full text]